5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Maribor.
6.  In January 1991, after two concluded disciplinary proceedings, the applicant’s employer L. dismissed the applicant from his work. The applicant, who was consequently unemployed, instituted several proceedings challenging both decisions given in the disciplinary proceedings.
7.   On 16 April 1990 and, according to the applicant, on 1 February 1991 respectively, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Ljubljani) seeking the annulment of the disciplinary decisions.
On 15 May 1991, after several hearings, the court delivered, in the joint proceedings, a decision rejecting the applicant’s claims.
On 20 February 1992 the Court of Associated Labour of the Republic of Slovenia (Sodišče združenega dela Republike Slovenije) allowed the applicant’s appeal of 28 June 1991 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
On 3 March 1993 the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour again rejected the applicant’s claims.
 On 25 November 1993 the Court of Associated Labour of the Republic of Slovenia allowed the applicant’s appeal of 31 March 1993 and remitted the case again to the first-instance court for re-examination.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.
In the re-examination proceedings, the applicant lodged several written submissions addressed to the first-instance court, the (renamed) Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in social sodišče) and to different judges.
Of the three hearings held between 11 July 1994 and 3 February 1995, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert. It appears that the applicant objected to the appointment and the Higher Labour and Social Court rejected the objection on 6 October 1994.
After the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 20 February 1995.
8.  On 27 February 1995, the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.
On 13 December 1996 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 14 February 1997.
9.  On 1 March 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). On 29 April 1997 the applicant urged the court to decide on his appeal and on 23 May 1997 he supplemented the appeal.
On 23 September 1997 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 22 November 1997.
10.  In the meantime, on 27 March 1997 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against all the courts involved in his case. It appears that on 15 December 1997 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal also against the Supreme Court’s judgment.
On 7 March 2000 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 1 June 2000.
11. Despite the Court’s request, the applicant has not filed copies of his requests and the relevant decisions regarding the re-opening proceedings. However, according to the information supplied by the Government and corresponding to that supplied by the applicant, the latter, on 20 October 1998, lodged a request for reopening of the proceedings with the (renamed) Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani). After the decision rejecting the request had been quashed on appeal and remitted for reconsideration, the court rejected the applicant’s request again. On 25 May 2000 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 27 May 2000.
On 31 May 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. The Supreme Court’s decision, dismissing the applicant’s appeal, was served on the applicant on 4 July 2001.
According to the applicant, the Constitutional Court also rejected his constitutional appeal lodged in July 2001.
On 12 December 2001 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court rejected the applicant’s second request for reopening of the proceedings. After his appeal had been rejected, the applicant, on 9 September 2003, lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. It is possible that these proceedings are still pending.